You are a center-left moderate social libertarian.
Left: 1.13, Libertarian: 2.46
Foreign Policy: -5.66
Culture: You scored: -7.96

You're correct Sicarius. It is a generalization and life is more complex than this test. But take it with a grain of salt. Go on take the test and post the results ;)

You are a centrist social moderate.
Left: 0.78, Libertarian: 0.09
Foreign Policy: -3.78
Culture: -2.64

You are a center-left moderate social authoritarian.
Left: 2.2, Authoritarian: 2.31
Foreign Policy: -1.2
Culture: 2.57

So many libertarians. Screw that. Lol.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

it think this is the site which oriinally had that test, unless it's the same one.

i like it, has an international feel, not just american issues.

Yeah. Nowhere near this many people could believe in freedom.

A joke.

whats your idea of freedom invictus?

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77

I believe in freedom. Freedom from fear and evil. You can't have that in a libertarian society.

Not necessarily. While libertarianism is hardly a cohesive ideology, I doubt many would consider a police force as an example of state tyranny. Indeed, services such as roads and policing along with a legal system to bring wrongdoers to trial and enforce contracts and such would be completely appropriate in the wet-dream world of a hard-core libertarian.

You must be thinking of anarchism there, Thucydides.

some of those questions aren't worded very well and are loaded or even beg the question.

for instance: do you believe offensive or blasphemous art should be suppressed. That word suppressed right there messes with the answer to the question. Nobody wants to suppress art...

I like the Political Compass quiz better, more general less americacentric.

id like to hear some people defend some of what i (on the libertarian left) consider to be no brainers

for example(from political compass)

Q. What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state

who could have an issue with this statement??

or

Q. If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations?

who would disagree with that statement? some might see trans-national corp growth and expansion as a good thing because that in turn serves humanity (jobs, economic growth) but no one thinks that the growth of transnational corps are more important than humanity in itself, right?
how about

Q.I'd always support my country, whether it was right or wrong

putting a bee in a bonnet but this question is for me the dividing line between a intelligent person and an idiot.

Thucydides: There are so many Libertarians because on this quiz, if you are not Libertarian, you are Authoritarian.

This is what I got:

You are a left moderate social libertarian.
Left: 3.91, Libertarian: 1.57

Lol well JECE that's what I mean. To me (since I was so close to the very middle), authoritarianism has as many valid points as do libertarians.

You are speaking to a a far-left social libertarian :-)

"You are a far-left social libertarian"

"Q. If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations?

who would disagree with that statement? some might see trans-national corp growth and expansion as a good thing because that in turn serves humanity (jobs, economic growth) but no one thinks that the growth of transnational corps are more important than humanity in itself, right?"

What if you think that the responsibility of a company is to serve its shareholders, not "humanity" in general. After all, business are made and run to make profit.

Therein lies a problem with corporations, their primary objective is the interests of their shareholder. Sometimes this means the detriment of humanity. Take the Bhopal disaster for example.
Let me put this question to you TGM. Do you think corporations should have a responsibility to humanity in general?

No.

But with the Bophal disaster, I would point out that that constitutes not the company not serving humanity, but actually committing manslaughter.

Not even some responsibility? As it currently stands in most countries they have actually do have some responsibility to humanity because they are forced to by legislation. I am referring to such laws governing pollution emissions, work-place safety etc. Should these regulations be taken away?

That isn't serving humanity is it? That's not killing people.

In other words, you have a responsibility not to maim or kill. But that's a negative, and so I don't view it as a responsibility.

Aahh... so its a question of definition then. That's a problem with a question like the one you quoted, there are different ways of interpreting the key terms. It is possible then we might not even disagree about this.
I think all humans have a responsibility to humanity. Just as all members of a community have a responsibility to the community. Corporations, however, are not truly conscious entities. They are made up individual decision makers (sometimes thousands upon thousands of people), who each know their job and only their job. Alas this sometimes leads corporations astray (it is a kind corporate blindness) . Thus when a corporation makes a disastrous decision or series of disastrous decisions, it is rarely due to some evil mastermind, but rather to a series of decision by, perhaps, well meaning people. I think this is a challenge for humanity though, to find a way to make corporations have a conscience (or at least act like they do). Thus I would say that a corporation should have a responsibility to serve, not just its shareholder, but humanity.

But there is a difference between serving humanity and just not infringing on the property rights (I view my ownership of my body and life as a property right).

Ghostmaker you have pretty broad definition of property rights (not that there is anything wrong with that). Given that definition is what could constitute "serving humanity" other than not infringing on property rights. Clearly polluting the environment "infringes property rights". (etcetera).

Yes, but how can NOT doing something be serving humanity, exactly?

Is a non-existent bee serving humanity by *not* causing a nuclear holocaust?